Letters: Socialism is not the answer, First Lady deserves cover, and more

Wednesday

Apr 24, 2019 at 12:56 PMApr 25, 2019 at 9:48 AM

Socialism not the answer

EDITOR: It surprises me that those who are millionaires (most of the Democratic party) offer socialism as a remedy for society's ills. In (the April 13) Daily News, an opinion piece by Tribune News Service reads, "Simple slogans don't solve our complex problems," paints a word picture of Bernie Saunders, the Democratic Socialist millionaire. I think it is ironic that this millionaire wants to overturn capitalism (the system that gave him his millions) to promote socialism.

If he feels guilty about earning the money from a best-seller, he should start giving his own fortune away, not the taxpayer's money. And he remains free to do so. He could scholarship many a thankful student. Nobody will stop him.

At the height of his hypocrisy he condemns other wealthy millionaires and billionaires. This he does while promoting simplistic solutions that do not work.

It scares me he resides in Congress as a senator which holds the power of the purse. He should never be given more power to fritter away the taxpayers' money. If he ever became president, the United States would double or triple our national debt in a short time. It is too high as it is. In no time would our country be bankrupted.

Catherine Jarvis

Jacksonville

Climate change consensus

EDITOR: The refrain that climate change is the fault of human activity is confirmed by the statement that "97 percent of scientists conclude this is true." Such a declaration deserves investigation as to how this conclusion conforms to evidence, the method of research, and logical conclusions derived from data. To my amazement, after investigation, I found no data offered, only a conclusion. A conclusion offers no proof without a logical presentation of the evidence that leads to the conclusion. An article by Gayathri Vaidyanathan, available online, (ScientificAmerican.com/article/ how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming) reported that the original information for the "97 percent consensus" came from 12 scientists (not identified) who examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and concluded that 97.2 percent of these papers assumed a human role in global warming. None of the qualifications for these scientists was given. Vaidyanathan further reported that this data was later "reconstituted" to declare that 97 percent of "scientists" believed in global warming. The question remains as to how changing the word "articles" to "scientists" becomes a true statement? With minimal research, I found much material that questioned the validity of this "consensus" conclusion (i.e., PopularTechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html). However, the "97 percent scientific consensus" claim persists; being used daily by the media. A study by social scientists concluded that people would accept a view more readily if a recognized authority affirmed the conclusion. After all, who can challenge "scientists"; these people are smart and cannot be questioned. However, a conclusion based on authority alone does not assure a valid conclusion. ...

Before decisions are made that effect our economy and lives, it is imperative to follow proper research methods that offer valid conclusions based on sound epistemology and logic. Science, or any intellectual discipline, is not obtained from a consensus of conclusions; rather, it is based on honest research that processes data logically that leads to a conclusion. This system allows for honest debate and persistent evaluation of knowledge to determine what is true or false.

David Vanderbilt

Jacksonville

Melania Trump deserves a magazine cover

EDITOR: Last July, while waiting for a cashier at a local drug store, I noticed Life magazine's "Grace and Leadership" cover hypocritically canonizing model-antithesis Michelle Obama while consciously ignoring model-paragon Melania Trump.

I rambled on — suggesting the likelihood of a secret and subversive cabal of editors and publishers conspiring to shape our thoughts and opinions. In closing, I suggested that the notion was as unlikely as politically motivated, civil-service bureaucrats conspiring against an opposing political party candidate or obstructing a duly-elected president.

(Whew, I'm sure glad the Mueller report cleared that up!) Some readers disagreed, suggesting that magazines only publish what is trending.

The other day, I read an article from the Daily Wire quoting Vogue magazine's editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, who when asked if she was "overtly political" in the women they profile, publicly affirmed that she only features women who conform to their social agenda — women they believe in — women like Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris.

Huh, would you imagine that. I guess there really is a concerted attempt to keep Melania Trump from at least one magazine's cover. I wonder how progressively-minded editors and reporters will shape the news today.

Dan Lathers

Richlands

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.